V. S. Naipaul

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#4 Romair

I asked a question and while I did not get a direct answer, I take it that your answer was NO. According to you, Islam does not actively and aggressively disown or distance its followers from their pre-islamic heritage. You provided, as an example, your surnames. Fair enough. Perhaps it has something to with the ``high`` caste indicated by the surname. Maybe converts from ``lower`` castes abandoned their surnames more readily (bihari muslims for example).

Nonetheless, it is not hard to show that the preponderance of evidence is consistent with Naipaul`s hypothesis. My point is NOT that individual muslims necessarily are prone to this type of rejection.. only that the ideology favors such a sharp ingroup-outgroup contrast (this by the way is hardly unique to Islam). In particular, the more islamist one is, the more prone is one to this type of rejection.

Why do you think that the Zoroastranians packed up their bags in Iran and sought shelter in India? There are Indian muslims who are experts in Hindu epics (the foremost expert on the south indian version of the Ramayana is/was a muslim).. so it is not hard to find individuals who connect with their pre-islamic heritage.

This kind of debate or rather, war of words, has been repeated ad nauseam and, my position has nothing to do with like or dislike for pakistanis or indians or what have you. Many Pakistanis have a great deal in common with North Indians, including their genes. In a perverse way, Indian TV and bollywood have made inroads into the pakistan middle class and this has left some favorable images, despite all the weird history in the text books.

If you travel to India, you will find that virtually ALL the ancient temples of NORTH India are non-existent. We are talking of THOUSANDS of temples of antiquity. In south India, one does come across ancient temples. Why? Because of the acts of invaders who believed they were being consistent with a particular ideology. It is particularly interesting that the individuals involved in these atrocities are idolized in pakistan (Ghazni, Ghori). Why deny plain truths? This is such a sensitive topic that even the history books in India gloss over this, making very superficial reference (India was also the first country to have Satanic Verses banned, thanks to muslim objectors). Perhaps, in the future, we will have the maturity to accept what has happened in the past and also realize that we are not tied to the past. We live in an interconnected world and have the benefit of hindsight. Hopefully we can learn from the past.

I have read A Wounded Civilization and Million Mutinies Now and several books in between. The first one resonated with me greatly as I was rebelling against tradition and religion. Sure there were some gratuitious cheap shots in that book. Nonetheless it held up a mirror to me in a wholly different way. Million mutinies and his work since have been confusing. It`s as though he is beginning to believe that he could be wrong and is trying to make amends.
I`d say overall, his dislike of hinduism is exceeded only by his detestation of islam.

Rashid Mughal

Naipaul is arrogant and blunt .... and for most part, makes a valid point. Somebody has to point out to the muslims some home-truths.....somebody has to tell the harsh realities very visible in the dark side of this religious called Islam.

And he does the same with other issues - his criticism on Hinduism and Indian society in general is equally blunt and harsh.

The problem is not with Naipaul. The problem is with you and majority of muslims who are like frogs in the well. You guys can`t deal with the realities. Anybody pointing out the obvious flaws and utter nonsense which form parts of islam is immediately declared enemy.

There is no self-criticism....no introspection.....no analysis/acceptance of past/present faults/shortcomings .... no intellectual traditions of self-correction or reformation. And any muslims who dares question - well... may allah save him ... a fatwa is immedeiately declared on him.

sagittarius

It is a fair cop. But I dont call myself a writer. You do. Sylvia Platt looks bad for a person who teaches editing. And a line like this:


~~Now, however, I am forced to think and rethink my relation to this Brahmin enfant terrible who at one time tried to commit suicide by gassing himself as a nervous wreck~~

Is just messy messy messy.

ps: I share my birthday with Shaka Zulu. But you wouldnt know that. Maybe that is where my arrogance comes from.


:-)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#13 PunjabiZulu

I like your arrogance. You meant ``antagonistic`` when you wrote ``I am not trying to be antagonist, I am just genuinely amazed that you can call yourself a writer.`` I could probably teach you, too, a thing or two about writing and editing as I do college and university students here in Toronto.

A man can call himself anything, like you call yourself Zulu. I share my birthday with Chief Dingaan but you wouldn`t know that. Everyone is a writer these days, like yourself. I have worked more years in journalism, writing and publishing than you will ever do if you hurried up and started yesterday.

Rashid Mughal

Naipaul is an anti-Muslim biggott - a characteristic that all hindus share by default. I do not expect anything better coming from a hindu.

sagittarius aka Rashid Mughal No 10;

Dude, are you really a writer? Your meandering sentences are so convoluted and pompous they make me laugh. I am not trying to be antagonist, I am just genuinely amazed that you can call yourself a writer. Do you get much work as an editor out there in Toronto?

What else have you written?

VS Naipaul on Hinduism:

“The barbaric religious rites of Hinduism are barbaric; they belong to the ancient world. The holy cow is absurd; it is, as Nirad Chaudhuri suggests in The Continent of Circe, an ignorant corruption of an ancient Aryan reverence. The caste-marks and the turbans belong to a people who, incapable of contemplating man as man, know no other way of defining themselves.”

He may be a Nobel laureate, he may be an eminent historian; no, I haven`t read any of his work, and I am not a bit apolegetic about it either, and yet the man does not impress me one bit.
We have a way of putting people on the pedestal and thats exactly what we have done with him more so now that the title sits on his head.
He may rave and he may rant, it does not make any difference one way or the other, as Romair says. So lets just continue to ignore him, shall we?

PS: I don`t intend to read him either!

PunjabiZulu # 1

(I think he sees himself as a Hindu version of Iqbal. Incidentally, he writes cuttingly and intelligently on Iqbal. If he took a step back he might be able to see how people sometimes resemble those they rage against the most)

A very apt observation.

One a great poet. The other a great writer.

And both with dangerous theories - one has about the Muslims. The other has about Hindus.

#1, #3 & #7

Warpster failed to see my own opinion wrapped up in those book titles in my little essay which was more apt around the middle of 2003 when I banged out those words in a stream of consciousness against the clock in what the Zulu punjabber calls the effort of a 16-year-old. I am glad he has seen my youthfulness at work.

V. S. Naipaul fascinates me. I first vocalized the idea of a Nobel Prize for him in 1979 when I reviewed his book A Bend in the River and I was absolutely delighted that he finally picked up the coveted award in 2001.

Before he was bought by the BJP, the Naipaul I knew was one of the most cynically clinical of writers whose truth was pure and his courage rare. He never minced words about what he thought about Hinduism in his earlier works, and he never minced words when dealing with Islam. For a Brahmin, I felt, Naipaul was above religion... until his idea of Islam`s encroachment of Hindu lands and peoples infected the heads of the BJP who have given us rare insights into human animalism involving the Babri Mosque and the Gujarat Burnings. The world has become upside down because no two people seem to be on the same page of the Book of Life. The mind plays tricks with us because everyone tries to be too intellectual, thereby missing the actual.

In the case of Naipaul, we keep bringing Islam into the equation as if that is going to resolve anything. While it might seem odd at first, please think about it. Our viewpoints about religion and the rot in society come from all angles, and many of us who defend Islam and those among us who oppose religion of one sort or another fall into a camp peopled by atheists, agnostics, cynics, skeptics and secular humanists who place their faith in science and in the here-and-now.

Atheism, agnosticism, cynicism, skepticism and humanism are marvellous ideas that have evolved from the crucible of history after so much blood has been shed in the Name of God. A cynic like Naipaul could challenge God, I am sure, if they were to meet someplace -- just as Iqbal made a tryst with God through his ``Shiqwa`` before the people reduced him to one of them!

Literature -- whether it`s the Koran or Winnie the Pooh -- is our only hope of salvation. Sadly, the majority of us don`t read, and those that read do so selectively, precautiously.

Reading Naipaul gives us a wonderful insight into how literature can subvert in pleasantly surprising ways. I wish we were gullible enough to be subverted but, no, we cling to ideas whose time has gone and prefer to die with them.

Thank you, SamiT. I am currently reading Dalrymple`s The White Mughals.

Rashid Mughal

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

A.R Rahman isnt a hindu with a muslim name romair?!! what`re you talking about? he`s a devout muslim. he`s a hindu convert yes, but once someone brings the faith to islam, their bond with their old religion is finished forever. he didnt keep his fathers name, true. even doing that would not make him a hindu.